David Bokovoy Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Here I part company with David a bit.You dirty dog! I suspect someday that you'll see the light; even if it's in heaven.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 You dirty dog! I suspect someday that you'll see the light; even if it's in heaven.I'll believe it in heaven only if you can introduce me to Brother's J, E, D and P. (And I don't mean Men in Black!)
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think a lot may have to do with a sense of not having this long historical heritage in comparison with Catholics and Protestants (though many of the Protestant sects are newer than us, they still seem to tie themselves to the "historical Christian faith"). I get this sense from many Catholics of a certain sereneness when it comes to discussing stuff that they might not be involved in, but that others might get into. They can look back and see that their Church has gone through pretty much everything good and bad and still survived so they don't feel threatened by controversy or innovation...it will in the end if it survives be used for the good of the Faith.LDS have this attitude in some ways due to the concept of the "true living faith" we teach along with the "prophet will never leave the Church astray", but we haven't experienced it yet, our Church has survived so much, but "everything" and certainly not for 2000 years (as those who see themselves as part of the historic Christian faith would likely interpret that age of their faith). When that certainty becomes part of our collective, "genetic" being, then I can see more neutrality or actual interest in exploration outside of the 'approved' box.And yet we are the ones who should be more adventurous - we have no Magesterium, no catechism, and everyone argues about the doctrine. All we have to do is pass a temple recommend interview truthfully and we are as "true Mormon" as you can get.We have no excuse for being literalistic, but yet we are.
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Not incorrect.......the church will not adopt and teach the Documentary hypothesis with its obvious logic and full conclusions. If any biblical scholarly conclusions give a different answer from the church, the church will always stick with the tradition interpretations, analysis, and logic. We don't update.But guess what? We can still believe in the DH and get a recommend. Orthopraxis and all that.
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 We have no excuse for being literalistic, but yet we are.I say that we blame it on the Protestants that most of us (or our ancestors) came from.
David Bokovoy Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I'll believe it in heaven only if you can introduce me to Brother's J, E, D and P. (And I don't mean Men in Black!)That's nothing! Wait till I introduce you to Brother's H, and PG, then we'll have a party!! Edited June 28, 2012 by David Bokovoy
Nevo Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) We have no excuse for being literalistic, but yet we are.A literal reading of the Restoration scriptures fairly demands a (mostly) literal reading of the Bible. Orthopraxy aside, faithful LDS scholars aren't really at liberty to conclude, for example, that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, or in Bethlehem, or that he was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, or that he didn't literally rise from the dead--or that the apostle John died in the first century C.E., or that Malachi wasn't a historical personage, or that the Holy Spirit is female, and so on and so forth. These options are off the table. Edited June 28, 2012 by Nevo
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 That's nothing! Wait till I introduce you to Brother's H, and PG, then we'll have a party!! I'm willing to be the hypothetical brother k if I can get invited to the party! I hope it'll be bar b q.......
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why on earth should the Church teach something that is not the Gospel entrusted to it and that does not help spread the Gospel one bit?You might be happier in a Church of your own where you could dictate the Revelations as if you were a prophet.Why on earth would I want that?! Goodness I am perfectly happy where I am, warts, myopia and all...... 1
CASteinman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why on earth would I want that?! Goodness I am perfectly happy where I am, warts, myopia and all......You masquerade your happiness in the clothing of discontent and emotion laden attacks upon the members of the Church as they follow the direction of the Prophet and Apostles in simple honesty. For some reason, their modest and faithful behavior is disgusting to you in sufficient degree that you must speak out -- loudly and offensively (as you said you cannot keep quiet). It appears to me that you do not like their behavior and attitudes because it is somehow stupid or naive. But, as I was saying, that's all an act, right? You don't really believe the stuff you are saying?
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 You masquerade your happiness in the clothing of discontent and emotion laden attacks upon the members of the Church as they follow the direction of the Prophet and Apostles in simple honesty. For some reason, their modest and faithful behavior is disgusting to you in sufficient degree that you must speak out -- loudly and offensively (as you said you cannot keep quiet). It appears to me that you do not like their behavior and attitudes because it is somehow stupid or naive. But, as I was saying, that's all an act, right? You don't really believe the stuff you are saying?exactly.......
volgadon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 exactly.......As we all know what an enemy of the good and true and modest and faithful and honestly simple you are.
CASteinman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 exactly.......I don't think I understand why you do that then.
volgadon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Thanks, Matt, for sharing this information. I still care very much about BYU and its success. I'm very pleased to learn that you had such a positive experience in the ANES program. True enough, the Documentary Hypothesis isn't going anywhere. Most recently, it's basic validity has been argued successfully by Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, and Friedman,It is still the basic model accepted by American and Israeli scholars for understanding the development of the Pentateuch. In recent years, many continental scholars, however, have abandoned the traditional theory of documentary sources in the Pentateuch as a relevant model for explaining its development, and in its place adopted a “Fragmentary” or “Supplementary” Hypothesis.This assessment does not mean to suggest that continental studies have entirely rejected the basic premise of separate sources within the Pentateuch. “The newer contributions to Pentateuchal research from Europe do not aim at overthrowing the Documentary Hypothesis,” writes Konrad Schmid, “rather, they strive to understand the composition of the Pentateuch in the most appropriate terms, which… includes ‘documentary’ elements as well.”[1]I have a basic survey of these issues in the initial chapter of my dissertation if you're ever interested in following up on these views.Best,--DB[1] Schmid, "Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis?" in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Brauch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17-18.I just realised I haven't kept up on this aspect, so I've got some reading to do. What would you recommend as the best introduction to the Fragmentary Hypothesis?
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't think I understand why you do that then.Yes, I am more than well aware of that.....
CASteinman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I just realised I haven't kept up on this aspect, so I've got some reading to do. What would you recommend as the best introduction to the Fragmentary Hypothesis?I sort of wondered the same thing.. except I want to be shallow. Where can I read a summary 2 pages on the Fragmentary Hypothesis?(BTW, I like your new Avatar). Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (BTW, I like your new Avatar).And I am wondering where yours came from...?
zerinus Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Wow..... great quote. I believe, truly I do, in time.......we will get away from this simplistic faith and gain in great leaps and advances our knowledge without worrying about what it does to faith.....2 Nephi 28:31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.There is nothing wrong with the "precepts of men," provided that their precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Knowing when it is and when it isn't is what separates the men from the boys. Here are some more scriptures for you to look at:Ether 4:12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; . . . I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.Mormons don't have a monopoly on what is "good," "praiseworthy," or "of good report," provided we don't lose sight of where it comes from, wherever it may be found. And we will only be able to recognize it when we see it by the power of the Holy Ghost: D&C 11:12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.We will be led astray if we look for it in some other way.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 2 Nephi 28:31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.There is nothing wrong with the "precepts of men," provided that their precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Knowing when it is and when it isn't is what separates the men from the boys. Here are some more scriptures for you to look at:Ether 4:12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; . . . I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.Mormons don't have a monopoly on what is "good," "praiseworthy," or "of good report," provided we don't lose sight of where it comes from, wherever it may be found. And we will only be able to recognize it when we see it by the power of the Holy Ghost:D&C 11:12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.We will be led astray if we look for it in some other way.Yeah well considering that Joel prophesied the Spirit of God being poured out upon all flesh in the last days, none of this is much of a worry eh? 1
CASteinman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 And I am wondering where yours came from...?Self portrait. Obviously! Its the death mask of a man whose work intrigues me. William Blake.
volgadon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I sort of wondered the same thing.. except I want to be shallow. Where can I read an summary 2 pages on the Fragmentary Hypothesis?(BTW, I like your new Avatar).Thanks. One of my favourite pictures even as a child.I think "Except I want to be shallow" would make for a fun sig line.
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Its the death mask of a man whose work intrigues me. William Blake.That explains the smile.I think "Except I want to be shallow" would make for a fun sig line.Totally agree Edited June 28, 2012 by calmoriah
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Self portrait. Obviously! Its the death mask of a man whose work intrigues me. William Blake.GOOD taste!!! two thumbs up.....
volgadon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Self portrait. Obviously! Its the death mask of a man whose work intrigues me. William Blake.Another of my favourites. Was able to see some of his work at the Tate. You might enjoy Christopher Rowland on Blake and biblical traditions.
CASteinman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I think "Except I want to be shallow" would make for a fun sig line.Ahhh.. indeed it would!!! Never thought of that. (Evidently that shallowness does not need to be pretended). Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman
Recommended Posts